Süleyman Mollaibrahimoğlu, Abdurrahman Harbi
{"title":"Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’ân ile Keşşâf Tefsirlerinin Nesh Açısından Mukayesesi","authors":"Süleyman Mollaibrahimoğlu, Abdurrahman Harbi","doi":"10.34247/ARTUKLUAKADEMI.551345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Naskh (abrogation) is one of the important notions in ‘Ul ū m al-Qur'ān (the Qur’ānic sciences) that emerged for the purpose of explaining, preserving and interpreting the Qur’ ā n. Naskh was one of the early controversial topics in Islamic sciences and has been discussed in detail by almost every mufassir (the writer of a commentary on the Qur’ ā n ). Abrogation has been subject to many academic studies until today. In this study, we compared Ta’wīlātu'l-Qur’ān by Imām al-Māturīdī (D. 333 AH /944 CE) and  al-Kashshāf by al-Zamakhsharī (D. 538 AH/1144 CE) in terms of their manner of discussing naskh. As a result of this comparison, it has been concluded that both works sufficiently and deeply evaluated the subject matter and each of them proved their proficiency in their exegesis on the Qur’ ā n . Furthermore, while giving place to the views of the former commentators in the tradition, Imām al-Māturīdī and al-Zamakhsharī also expressed their own arguments. Even though they seem to be similar in embracing naskh, they vary primarily in evaluating the narratives by various mufassirs and especially in the way they used the sources which constitute the basis of naskh.","PeriodicalId":179102,"journal":{"name":"ARTUKLU AKADEMİ","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARTUKLU AKADEMİ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34247/ARTUKLUAKADEMI.551345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

“废除”(废除)是“Ul ' m al-Qur'ān”(《古兰经》ānic科学)中的重要概念之一,它的出现是为了解释、保存和解释《古兰经》。“废除”是伊斯兰科学中早期有争议的话题之一,几乎每一位穆法西尔(《古兰经》注释的作者)都详细讨论过。直到今天,废除一直是许多学术研究的主题。在这项研究中,我们比较了Ta 'wīlātu 'l- qur ' ān by Imām al-Māturīdī (D. 333 AH/ 944 CE)和al- zamakhshari ' al-Kashshāf (D. 538 AH/1144 CE)讨论naskh的方式。通过这种比较,可以得出结论,这两部作品都充分而深入地评价了主题,而且每一部都证明了他们对《古兰经》的注释能力。此外,Imām al-Māturīdī和al- zamakhshari在接受传统中前评论者的观点的同时,也表达了他们自己的论点。尽管他们在接受纳斯克方面似乎是相似的,但他们主要是在评价不同穆法西尔的叙述上有所不同,尤其是在他们使用构成纳斯克基础的资料来源的方式上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’ân ile Keşşâf Tefsirlerinin Nesh Açısından Mukayesesi
Naskh (abrogation) is one of the important notions in ‘Ul ū m al-Qur'ān (the Qur’ānic sciences) that emerged for the purpose of explaining, preserving and interpreting the Qur’ ā n. Naskh was one of the early controversial topics in Islamic sciences and has been discussed in detail by almost every mufassir (the writer of a commentary on the Qur’ ā n ). Abrogation has been subject to many academic studies until today. In this study, we compared Ta’wīlātu'l-Qur’ān by Imām al-Māturīdī (D. 333 AH /944 CE) and  al-Kashshāf by al-Zamakhsharī (D. 538 AH/1144 CE) in terms of their manner of discussing naskh. As a result of this comparison, it has been concluded that both works sufficiently and deeply evaluated the subject matter and each of them proved their proficiency in their exegesis on the Qur’ ā n . Furthermore, while giving place to the views of the former commentators in the tradition, Imām al-Māturīdī and al-Zamakhsharī also expressed their own arguments. Even though they seem to be similar in embracing naskh, they vary primarily in evaluating the narratives by various mufassirs and especially in the way they used the sources which constitute the basis of naskh.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信